The Effects of Sanction Intensity on Criminal Conduct - JDAI Helpdesk

are partly selected on the basis <strong>of</strong> substantive severity, but also on other factors such as
frequency <strong>of</strong> commission and likelihood <strong>of</strong> detection. It is clear, given these additional
qualities <strong>of</strong> the UCR Part I <strong>of</strong>fenses, that any <strong>of</strong>fender, regardless <strong>of</strong> risk, would be much
more likely to commit some <strong>of</strong> these <strong>of</strong>fense types. Since there is some overlap <strong>of</strong> the
most severe crimes in the UCR list with the model-defined serious <strong>of</strong>fenses, it is likely
that the majority <strong>of</strong> additional UCR Part I <strong>of</strong>fenses committed by the low risk group were
the less serious, more nationally prevalent crimes like motor vehicle theft. Similarly, our
victim proxy for cost likely captured some less serious crimes (substantively or
economically) simply because we selected them based on victim status only. <strong>The</strong> 1993
dollar estimates provided in Cohen (2000) show that the tangible and quality <strong>of</strong> life costs
<strong>of</strong> victim crimes vary widely, not to mention the costs <strong>of</strong> some non-victim crimes. For
example, the cost per victimization for homicide was thought to be nearly $3 million,
compared to just $2,000 for an assault without serious injury, but our measure included
both. A more refined analysis <strong>of</strong> economic severity in comparison to the model’s
definition would require more data, updated cost estimates for a wide range <strong>of</strong> victim and
non-victim crimes, and more detail about each charge in order to make more accurate
judgments about injury and damage, beyond the simple victim/non-victim distinction.
Additional data on lifetime <strong>of</strong>fending would also allow for some more sophisticated
developmental analyses <strong>of</strong> severity and <strong>of</strong>fending escalation like the model proposed in
Ramchand et al. (2009).
In all, it would appear that the Philadelphia model has achieved its purpose with
this sample <strong>of</strong> <strong>of</strong>fenders. Returning to the earlier discussion <strong>of</strong> the qualities that make the
model a valuable contribution to the risk prediction literature, we can confirm that the
166